ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

Press, Volume XXXVII, Issue 5139, 22 February 1882, Page 2

ELECTION PETITIONS COURT.

WAKANOT.

TtrSBDAT, FsBBTJATiT 21. [Before thair Honors Mr Jnettoe Johnston ax* Mr Justice Williams.] The Court aat in the Town Hall, Bak&u, it ten o'clock. *

JOSBPH ITBS3 T JOHW OATHCABT WAROW Mr Stont. with him Mr Wilding, for the BrtL tioner ; Mr Button, with him Kir Geo. Btsrm for the respondent. Mr Cri«p appeiwsd e» behalf of the Eegietration Officer and tbefiT turning Offioer. Mr Wilding read the petition. The first fon. paragraphs were of a formal character. Kb« others set forth—s. That four persona name? among others, voted at the said election were not qualified to vote thereat, being alien6. That nine persons named, amongst otherT voted at the said election who were not qualifies to vote thereat, being persona under twenty. on» Tears of age. 7. That five persona namej. amongst ethers, voted at the said eleotion *]■£ were not qaaliSed to vote thereat, being person who were not duly registered on the Wak&tmi roll for the time being. 8. That the names <£ the persons mentioned in the foregoing graphs 5 and 7 were counted on the poll forth* said John Catbcart Waeon, and they ehoolj now be struck off the poll. 9. Thai; there were seven persona, amongst others, whoee votes were disallowed that should not have been and that those per pone would have voted scrainst the said John Catbcart Wason, and tint of them would have voted for your petitioner. 10. That there were votes that bad been polled for your petitioner whfob the Returning Officer disallowed. Clajuj 11 went on to object that the election was improperly held in the following respectg. —(a) That names were added to the roll the write were issued; (b) 1 hat the votes were not duly scrntinif ed as required by the 41et Beotioa of the Herniation of Elections Aoi; (c) Thai the names of a large number of claimants wro inserted on the roll before the expiration c ; ■ fifteen days after the receipt by the Begiafct© of ths claims, and after the issue of the ioU h«d been gazttted; (d) That many claimants inserted on the roll whose names were irregnfo? by ro\son of their not having attached their signatures theTeto; (c) That a Urge nnmher of persone had their names inserted on. the roH withoat their knowledge, and without titdr ha via? authorised any person to send in a olaiij on th sir behalf; (f) That the names of seTtni •en 3ns entitled to vote for the Wakanoidit. trie* were wronef ully omitted lrom the Wskanti roll and placed upon the Ashburton roll; fa) That the Dames of many persons not entitles under the property or reeidotitinl qualificaUca were wrongf ally placed upon the Wakanui roll, and that such persons voted for Mr Wason m<3 agaunt Mr Iveea; (h) That the votes of tl« persona named in the ninuh paragraph, wlj would have voted for petitioner and "agaiset tie respoadent, wore rejected on the ground tt&t the names were not in all respeats identio&lwitb these on the printed roll; and that the votwef other persons, who it is believed voted for tie respondent, were allowed to bo recorded mlg eimihr oonditione. 12. That the EfltarDitf Officer declared the votea at the declaration d the pall to be —Woeon 415, Ivess 435 j brt if the voten wrongly counted for Waaan hadhwa btruck off, and the votes disallowed been nUowsl for your petitioner, your petitioner weald Inn been declared duly elected, for your petitua? had a real majority of good and voted on the said eleotion in his faYor.<~^£g n . fore yonr petitioner prays, that it mey tejjjfe" mined that the raid John Oathcart Wasonmj not duly eleotod or returned, and tt»t his election and return wrae and arenttfljicij, and that year petitioner, the said Joseph Iwa, was duly elected and ought to have- bean* turned, and yonr petitioner will ever pray. It waa alleged on the part of the rsepontel that many persons voted for the petitioner *ho were not qualified. Mr Stont, in opening the cue, sail iht petition might ba viewed in two aspects, Tb* first wae as to the effect of unquslified penoa Toting on the status of the petitioner end the respondent. The second aapewt was ai tv whether, owing to the way in which the roll had been made up, there had really been aa eleetoe or noli, and also whether the Court conteheU kr inqniry into the method in which the Beiam» ing Officer and Begietration Officer had psformed their datifia, and the effect of thep®form wee of those dnties on the validity of tla •lection. The dase for the petitioner might It divided under three heads—FireS, whether tbs Ckmri wonld cob eider what might be termed tbs personal disqualification, such as in the cfese et aliens and Maoris ; eeooxd, whether they msJd consider the property qualification of cextais voters ; and, third, as to the scrutiny theOmffS wool l have to make cf the votes gives. Mr Justice Johnston—lf we can fiitousa neither the personal er property qnalifie»teott;\ the qneation of soratinv doea cot arise. Mr Stont said if the Court decided tbai «

could not disease either the personal or prcees4y. qualification, Will the petitioner claimed tie seat, because votes had been struck off »li{& ought not to have been; ia other wordf, tttera were sufficient votes .. not counted ?« &• petitioner which ought to have been, and 9&&t refused which ought to have been allowed, to enable him to claim the seat, altogether fee* peotive of the question of aliens atd infante, or of the property qualification. Ever supposing the register were deemed oobcluslto the petitioner claimed the seat. He would first meation, with regard to infanta and aliens, that proceedings had been taken since the election, and four aliens had been struck off the roll. Hβ submitted that the Court would be bound by that decision. 'With regard to the infante, there oould be no dispute that they were under tweaSp one years of age. Aβ to the scrutiny, the question of misnomer would come up. There oooW be no deubt that the actions ef the Betnrnkig Officers had been most peoul ar. Tfrjy 6m allowed persona to vote for the «a]londs!i whose names did not correspond with tiijissaa on the roll, bnt were wrongly ipelk*'! Soma names had been wrongly struck off.' Ttops?sons voted in the name of Hugh Kennefo The realeleotor voted for the petitioner, wad tba other man who claimed to be Hugh K«aae3y voted for tho respondent! and tho Eeinrning Offioer disallowed both votes. There waa similar case, and these, if added to the rffO votes referred to in paragraph 9 of the petition, would give a majority ef one to the petiiionsr. The election could be held to be void on tint ground alone—that the Returning Officer had a month after the passing of the Bepresentetoa Act within which to make up the roll, tide would bring the time to October 24th, 1681, cad from that date until the issue of tke writ m* . the only opportunity for objecting to tfca ntmca on the now roll. It so happened thai the roll, with the supplementary roll, was not printed and circulated until the writ had been detail? issued. Now. anyone who was objected to must have fifteen days within which to show cause why his name should not be removed from the roll. The reauli was ftafc there was no time to object before the roll was published, because after a writ was once usnea the roll could net be disturbed. Bothatiftb* Court were to hold thsfe the roll was eonclasSta as to the right of the persona aaraed thereis i* vote, the result would be that fifty ont migei put huud'oda of names on the roU, and an eSeo> tion could be held by people not qualified, and the Election Petitions Court would be power*

leas. There were two rolls in the diatrict-»M» which was published and gazetted early ffl November, and a new roll which was EC* printed or finished until a week after tw issue of the writ. That supplementary roll i» never been gazetted, and yet the election hse been bold upon it. Section 8 of the Eep/e----aentation Act provided that, the roll hmS formed, notice should be sent to tie Cotans Secretary, who sboold publieh a notice in t» "Gaastte." The election had been held c * roll which was not so sent to the Gokafel Secretary, and wbiob consequently coalaas* legally have been used for the election. Teas isras another important point contained in pa* graph eleven of the petition, in reference » wbioh it could be shown th-.t theJl» was improperly prepared. The P»»g«g? stated that the names of several pg sons entitled to vote in tbe WakanuT d&®» were wrongfully omitted from the roll «» placed on the roll for another district— ton. The evidence would show that the Bej* tratiou Officer had placed a large names on the Wakanui roll that ought Jβ JJ™ been on other rolls, and had placed en we *g* burton roll names that should have beea «oj«? Wakanui roll Pracfcioaliy, there tunity of getting the roll amended. other irregularitaee. For example, rasa* w™ added to the roll after the writ was the votes were not duly Bcrotimeed, « *5«3 by Bection4lof the Act. Section 40 pwil^t^ i the Beturning Officer abonld give time and place where be would hold MS W*™?*' Hβ gave notice ihat be would begin * he .!fF~2 at ten minutes past six o'clock, and he ota **«% it at that hour. But it was only a *™%%3 the votes polled at the booth wherel***** presided, becauee it waa impwabte«»»«» returns from the polling places could HajeJg? im at ten minutes past six o'clock. ,»»*"£; qaenltly soratinieed the Uats seat : J»jrw Deputy Beturning Officers, without.W»J| the scrutineers of the petitioner. Hesnbtt"** 1 that, to say the least, that was All these lacts, which would beMPenfc ' **&£ show that there had been, pm^lcato,^ w «** tion in the district-that there had %*%£*£; roll, becaase the roU oa whici the <te™%Jfr Hftid to have been hdd had not been coßpJ"* w terms of the statute. t* the Mr Button was heard in answer »,*"" petition! that ifall the tgg Seas of the other side were proved tiu> «S| of the electioa would not be effected. »"» regard to alieas, oamas appeared oa the roll. te«Xrias«* that the roll was eonehuave aa w»*^ra, the persoM to vote whosei names wert!^ . teamed oouns'l «mi«ted the support of this position m tte• case of W Son petition. Hβ submitted that, the V*jZ£ Mmcd conclusive wito regard to fee *i>^

eSJSKaES frfSng to and altering the roll trp Sou, were to be gwatted immediately, JSSeetbere wcuia not have been time. With SrftoS* action of the Betumiug.Officer, 2Ti to whether hi« acts were final or retteei to review, it must be asked whether kfl Ktea ministerially or judicially. In the forioation of the roll he acted micutariaUy. In i" of * he <**!*& *? «fe to was jadiei*!. and where a judicial aofc vss performed there was no appeal, and no proririonmade for appeal-it was fin*l. Hβ could nni find any c«e is wbi<:b. an election had seen «ided throogh the of the BeturnSTofficar, though, of course, a Beturniog Seer could be summoned to the bar o: the Sense. To chow that the Returning Officer ■» jadgment was final he would refer to> the 29th Jectioa of the Regulation, of Election.Act. which provided that if required so to do by any &&&&££ whether er aot the person was qualified to Tote, JowS the rolls to be altered within a certain toe, end though it might be impossible for a persia within that time to apply to have the roM rectified, nevertheless the spirit of the Act was that the roll should be conclusive, and they, were not to go outside the clear intention of. the Leziehtare because certain inoonveaience might ocott. If *hey did, there would be thegreater of the whole district beuig disfranchised. It was never intended that tne .Wementary roll should be sent to the Mr Harper addressed the Ctenrt on several mjßte in the caee, contending that in all quesgone where there was an attempt to open up the roU the roll was conclusive on the Court as well uon the returning officer, and, if bo, it was, a fyrtiori, conclusive with regard to any wrong W «as committed by the registrar in the fornation of the roll. Mr Stoat was heard at length in support of the petition. If the roll waa conclusive. and there was do appeal against the action of the retards? officer, what was the ebjeot of appointinz the Election Court? Its functions wonld omy be confined to questions of corrupt practice, fhe 3rd section of the Eleotion Petitions Act Cthe Court power to deal with all questions, returning officer might allow thousands of persoM to vote whose names where not on the roll, asd penwns who were on the roll but who were deed, and was it to be said that the Court fcsi so power to deal with such cases. The arguments of the other side on this point were Bofaully destructive, for it was contended that the roll which was conclusive was the one which was gawtted, bnt there was a supplementary toll, containing 275 names, which bad not been pastted, and which, therefore, according to the argument of the other side, could not Dβ conthieve. "■ " ■•* . Mr Button having replied, Mr Justice Johnston said—We propose to disaembarrass the case by giving judgment on sme points of law which do not require any evidence. Wβ are of opinion, after carefully eosgidsriog' the arguments adduced in the cs.se a&Lyttefton, and those which have beea heard f>day, that the obj ction in respect to the voting of aliens and infante cannot be supported. The language of the 27th section of the fiegisfeatjea of Electors Act is to this effect:— "Ibat when the roR has been added to and altered from time to time it shall for the time beJEg be the roll for the district for which it is made, and the several persons whose names are •a the said roU, and do other person, shall be entitled to vote at any election of a membar of the Hove of Bepweentitives for such district." It Joay fee tree that there is no expressed proviiions t/t*'the eritting Acts that aliens asd infante—or -alien* at aUerents-shall not be entitled to vote, bat cm{y that they shall not be entitled to ba registered. Wβ think it must nave been the intsatka of the Legislature to make the register eoochuire for some purposes, and among others for a parpen like this: that the names of persons who might, like aliens, have been objected to, fcsington the register, the matter is not to be ■ further inquired into. Although some comments have baen made with regard to the judgment et Mr Justice Blackburn, it seems pretty dear from the report given of the ease of Stowe v Jolsffe that it waa contemplated by the Court ■there that bat for the proviso in the Ballot Act thei nothing in the section should entitle any parson to vote who was prohibited from voting BTBtatute, or by the common law of Parliament —that but for the existence of that section in the Ballot Act, the appearance on the rolls of the names ef the parties alleged to be aliens would have been conclusive. After the exhaustive argument we have heard and the great preponderance of authority on the point, we think it unnecessary to go further into the question. The same doctrine will apply to the case of in. faate as to that of aliens. With regard to the 7th paragraph of the petition we are not prepared at present to give a decision on the qaertion of law raised by it, and we shall hear endenes for tha purpose of ascertaining the actual state of the facts to which we ate to apply the law- Wβ shall also be prepared to beir evidence about the 9th and 10th paragraphs of the petition. With regard to the Uth paragraph as to some alleged improprieties, we -cask they cannot be gone into on this occasion. I do not think it necessary that we should • Jadskat present on sections A and B We wish to receive evidence on the subject of the names added to the roll after the writ was issued, and feet the evidence, to tea what effect it ought to Jsre upon the construction of the law. So also "Kith regard to C. We think th*t O, D and £, are matters which H was quite within the com. -patency of the Registrar to do under a provision in section 6 of tha Registration ef Electors Act, 1879, which gives Mm power .to make the roll as complete as possible, asd with that object from -time tc time to add thereto the name of any person of whose qualification as an elector he was-eatiafied. lax Stout, referring to section B of paragraph It, said it was a corrupt practice to entf in •eSauas without authority, and quoted the 28th • clause of the Corrupt Practices Act. Mr Justice Williams remarked that the ngiitratioa officer, if he thought the persons entitled to vote coald place their names on the roll, no matter by whom the claims were sent in. Mr Justice Johnston said the paragraph zefcnefi to contained no allegation of corrupt imctioe. Mr Stout said it was intended to allege corrupt practice, and Mr Harper denied lhat the respondent had so regarded it. Mr Justice Jonnstem—■Witfi regard to clauses ]f and G those era cases we cannot go into. Mr Justice Williams quite agreed that taking <ihe Acts together, and especially having regard K 7 .**"» Begistratfon of Electors *.«, lb7», the register was conclusive as to the right el! the persons who-aere upon it to vote. The Legislature fcaa made the roll final by the eecfeacijpst referred to. It had provided means for sinking off the roll persons who ought not to ba there, and it had fixed a period—the issue of the writ —beyond which no additions ootid be made to the rolL It might happen that sumcunt time was not allowed to enable candidates te review the roll and get objectionable parsons shuck off. That might be a misfortune, but it would be a still greater misfortn:.e if the Court vera te decide that in every ease after an ateetioa parsons whose names were on tberoD eauld be impeached for wast of qualification. For that reason he was of opinion that all the allegation* in the petition which. Bought to open ap the roll must faQ. Mr Stout then offered evidence in support of the petition. William Stevens, a farm laborer, residing at South Bakaia, deposed that lie voted at the Bakau polling place. Hβ seat in a claim to Twte, bat did sot know whether be was an the roU. Never lived atWheatstone, and if there was a William Stewns, of Wheatatone, he was no!tthet person. C-P. Cox, Begisteation Officer forWakanui, prodeoed fiie rolL There was only one William ojCTBoe oe the roU. The name was token from we old Coaeridge roll, and no claim bad been sent in.

Alexjwde J.Entherfard, Becord Cfcrk of the nonse of EepresestatiTes, produced the rolla papers tiEed at the election. Btewßs, laborer, reading at Wheat•wm. imtti that bs toted at tka etection, at -i£p. Kennedy, farmer of Wakanui, said he 2«a»fctte Cractjr Ceundl polling. Did not w^ 5, ? but expected to be transferred Did not know any BTKeaneay. and had lived in *•* year*. «* fteLm^S.?* doposed that he -roted tJ P f 1 *• Coferidge roll. *■■■ «»W,lißßer, firing at Kyb, 3e-

of the last wttneM, said be voted at the Saleyards. iAMn. Was registeted, and his name was on the roll. TnouTae BtevenßOu. of South Bakaia, deposed that he voted at Bakaia.. »* «">* m » eUun *° vole about ebr. weeks previaßßhr* . ~ . Thomas Btevenson, of Soethßafai*. WdM made a claim to be registered, but jaid not vote, because the Betaming Officer told him that a Thomas Stevenson had already, voted. Mr Cox deposed that the chum seat » by the last witneea waTregiatered. *•**£%£%£ of any other claim cent in by Thomas oseven

Malcolm Miller, farmer, livtag on the north ride of AshburtoE. d*po«ed that he■ «"» » • roll. The 1 SSrSSSdrfTffi ?was a Matthew Milter on t£ Coteri<fce roll, whom he behaved was mtended forto last witness. . There was a Malodm"fuller on the Wakenui roU in respect * . residential qualification. Names. were placed on the rolTup to the time when lefarEn was received of the isswof the writ but none were registered after the issue cf the this stage the Court adjourned until this morning at tea o'c'o^k.